Dr. Paul Kerlinger

The Association for the Protection of Amherst Island appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval to Windlectric Inc. for a 26-turbine wind facility on Amherst Island.

The Appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health from turbine and concrete batch plant emissions, and serious and irreversible harm to animal life, specifically Bobolink, raptors/owls, bats, and Blanding's turtles.

The Environmental Review Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to meet the statutory onus under the Environmental Protection Act to prove that the project would cause serious harm to human health or serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director's decision was confirmed.

In an appeal of a Renewable Energy Approval for a wind facility, the appellants brought several procedural motions.

The Tribunal dismissed a motion for further disclosure but granted summonses for two Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry employees to testify regarding species at risk.

The Tribunal dismissed a motion to adjourn the hearing, finding it unnecessary to secure a fair determination.

The Tribunal ruled on multiple motions to exclude reply witness statements, admitting those that properly responded to new evidence and excluding those that merely bolstered previous evidence or introduced new issues.

Finally, the Tribunal dismissed a motion for recusal, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias based on the Members' prior statements or their conduct during the hearing.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a 10-megawatt wind facility.

The appellant argued that the project would cause serious harm to human health due to noise, water contamination, and fire risks, and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, specifically the Oak Ridges Moraine and species at risk birds.

The Tribunal found that the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence to meet the statutory tests under the Environmental Protection Act.

The Tribunal accepted the expert evidence of the approval holder and the Director that the project posed a low risk to water resources and that compensation habitat would adequately mitigate impacts on bird species.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director's decision was confirmed.

The appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval for a 5-turbine wind facility located on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, specifically through hydrogeological impacts and impacts to bird habitat and significant woodlands.

The Tribunal dismissed the health and hydrogeological claims, finding the risks of noise, shadow flicker, and spills were low and adequately mitigated.

The Tribunal also dismissed the claim regarding grassland bird habitat, finding compensation measures sufficient.

However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, finding that the removal of portions of a significant woodland (SW-11) would cause serious and irreversible harm to the woodland and its function as habitat, as the proposed mitigation and compensation measures would take decades to replace the mature forest being removed.

The Appellant appealed a Renewable Energy Approval (REA) issued for a 5-turbine wind facility, arguing it would cause serious harm to human health and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, and that the REA process violated section 7 of the Charter.

The Tribunal reviewed extensive expert evidence on wind turbine noise, infrasound, and health impacts, concluding the Appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the project would cause serious harm to human health.

The Tribunal also found no Charter violation due to the lack of an evidentiary foundation for serious physical or psychological harm.

Finally, the Tribunal rejected the environmental claims, finding the project would not cause serious and irreversible harm to bird species at risk or their habitat.

The appeal was dismissed.

The appellant appealed the Director's decision to issue a Renewable Energy Approval for a 9-turbine wind facility on the Oak Ridges Moraine.

The appellant argued the project would cause serious harm to human health due to noise, shadow flicker, and safety risks, and serious and irreversible harm to the natural environment, including groundwater and bird species at risk.

The Tribunal found the appellant failed to meet its onus of proving the statutory tests under the Environmental Protection Act, relying on the expert evidence provided by the approval holder.

The appeal was dismissed and the Director's decision confirmed.